"As Dana Loesch aptly put it at The Federalist this week, "it is an abrogation of due process to invert the order of 'innocent until proven guilty' to 'somewhat guilty until proven innocent.'" GVRO (gun violence restraining order) advocates argue that the burden of proof must still fall on the party petitioning to confiscate the respondent's firearms — but the procedural reality is that the petitioner is still the first mover and, after that initial move, the onus shifts to the respondent to demonstrate his innocence (emphasis mine).Camel's nose. Slippery slope. Foot in the door. Punctuate it with whatever euphemism you desire, but do we really want a real-world blueprint drawn from the 'Minority Report' for restricting Constitutional rights?
That is hardly an exemplary means by which to dispense with a cherished constitutional liberty, and it is made even more egregious in the context of "emergency" ex parte (i.e., one-party) proceedings — which GVRO advocates concede will be a reality." - Josh Hammer at The Daily Wire
Everyone Should Be Very Skeptical Of ‘Red Flag’ Laws.